Well, I had the preconceived notions of youth (I'm old enough to have seen and heard some stars you won't probably even know about) when I first ran across Jeremy Brett's Holmes, so that I thought his portrayal pretty gross. I quickly got used to it, and maybe this other guy (whom I'm too old ever to have heard of up to now) will have the same effect.

Logged

Byron Leon McAllister.Books by Byron and Kay McAllister can most easily be obtained as e-books or in print from the publisher at http://www.writewordsinc.com/ For "Undercover Nudist," the print version is an improved version of the ebook version. The others are the same in both formats.

I'm going to reserve my opinion until I see the movie because I'm hoping for the best. Robert Downey, Jr. has plesantly suprised me in several roles he has done. Though some of his actions in life are questionable, I think he's a darn good actor.(I'm getting up there, too Byron, and was thinking the other day that is's a shame some of the younger generation will never get to enjoy some of the greats who have passed on - that is, unless they become old movie buffs.)

Like Lynette, I like Robert Downey Jr. in his movie roles - not so much in his private life. So, I expected to enjoy this movie.

While I did enjoy the movie as a Downey action-adventure, this was not my Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was never an athletic avenger, fighting the bad guys with his fists, getting involved in pursuits ending in fights and explosions, and I could never imagine Holmes as a womanizer.

That said, there have been a lot of films about Holmes that could be very boring because of the over-abundance of restraint and dignity that Holmes exhibited. I'm a Holmes fan, but even I got a little bored during those films. That was definitely not the case with this film.

If you expect a strict interpretation of the Holmes legend, or even a fairly accurate one, this is not the movie for you. If you wouldn't mind a little action/adventure and a little bit of roughness to Holmes, this might be a film you'd enjoy.

Like Lynette, I like Robert Downey Jr. in his movie roles - not so much in his private life. So, I expected to enjoy this movie.

While I did enjoy the movie as a Downey action-adventure, this was not my Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was never an athletic avenger, fighting the bad guys with his fists, getting involved in pursuits ending in fights and explosions, and I could never imagine Holmes as a womanizer.

First of all, Holmes was handy with his dukes, and was something of an athlete. Recall the barroom punch-up he had with the villain in "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches." Recall that it was his mastery of the Asian martial art "Baritsu" that was the deciding point when he went toe-to-toe with Moriarty in "The Final Problem." Recall that, when Watson was trying to figure out just what the hell he did for living in A Study in Scarlet, he noted that Holmes was an expert boxer and fencer.

And the film did not portray Holmes as a womanizer. It depicted him as a man who had feeling for one particular woman, Irene Adler. The Downey film is hardly the first depiction to suggest that the feeling was, despite Watson's demurral, romantic. Indeed, no less a Holmesian authority than William S. Baring-Gould has suggested that Nero Wolfe is the son of Holmes and Ms. Adler.

That said, there have been a lot of films about Holmes that could be very boring because of the over-abundance of restraint and dignity that Holmes exhibited. I'm a Holmes fan, but even I got a little bored during those films. That was definitely not the case with this film.

If you expect a strict interpretation of the Holmes legend, or even a fairly accurate one, this is not the movie for you. If you wouldn't mind a little action/adventure and a little bit of roughness to Holmes, this might be a film you'd enjoy.

I expected to hate it, but was very pleasantly surprised. While Downey is not the best Holmes physically, he's far from the worst (does anyone else recall Edward Woodward as a portly Holmes or Stewart Granger as a broad-shouldered, muscular Holmes?) What Downey lacks in being a close physical match he more than makes up for in a fine performance. And Jude Law is a splendid Watson.

And, in fact, the film is much more faithful to the Canon than many reviews suggest. Tiny details familiar to Holmesisan but lost on most casual viewers (like shooting "VR" in the walls of his apartment with a vintage revolver) are thrown in. Even the "bull pup" that Watson mentioned once, and only once, at the beginning of A Study in Scarlet and never refers to again, is given considerable screen time.

There are two rather major deviations from the Canon, and there seems to me to be little reason for them. First, Holmes is depicted as having never met Watson's fiancee, Mary Morstan. As any Holmes fan knows, Miss Morstan and Watson met when Miss Morstan was Holmes's client in The Sign of Four. Second, Irene Adler is depicted as a professional criminal, which she never was.

Other details which some may find jarring, Holmes's messiness, Watson's irritations at his idiosyncracies, Holmes's search for "kicks" when he had no case to engage him, Holmes's resistance to Watson's marriage, Watson's own combat skill, all have their antecedents in the original Conan Doyle stories.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the movie. However, as I recall (and I may be in error as it's been a long time since I read any Holmes stories), Irene Adler was what one might call a con artist of sorts, an opportunist who took advantage of situations that came her way.

I also think overall Jude Law and Robert Downey, Jr. had excellent onscreen chemistry in their roles of Watson and Holmes.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the movie. However, as I recall (and I may be in error as it's been a long time since I read any Holmes stories), Irene Adler was what one might call a con artist of sorts, an opportunist who took advantage of situations that came her way.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the movie. However, as I recall (and I may be in error as it's been a long time since I read any Holmes stories), Irene Adler was what one might call a con artist of sorts, an opportunist who took advantage of situations that came her way.

She was an American opera star, who had been wronged by her former lover, who just happened to be the King of Bohemia. She threatened to send evidence of their liason to the King's fiancee, not for blackmail purposes, but simply out of revenge for being thrown over.

The king hired Holmes to recover the evidence. Holmes was unsuccessful, but Irene, having fallen in love with , and married, a man who truly loves and values her, writes a letter to Holmes promising not to send the evidence to the King's future in-laws, but does keep it as insurance against any threatening moves the king or his agents may make against her or her family.

The king, satisfied with this result, decides to leave the status at the quo level. Holmes, favorably impressed with Irene, asks the King for her portrait in lieu of a fee.

It's all in Irene Adler's only actual appearance in the Canon, "A Scandal in Bohemia," the third story in the series (following the novels A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four), and the very first short story in the series.

You might question her sexual morality, particularly from the Victorian standards of Conan Doyle (and his alter ego, Dr. Watson), but a professional criminal she wasn't.

And now that I think about it, there's another divergence from the Sacred Canon. "A Scandal in Bohemia" is explicitly set after Watson's marriage to Mary, but the movie suggests that Holmes and Irene crossed paths for the first time prior to the Watson nuptials.

I do (vaguely) recall references to Irene in later stories that hinted Sherlock and she crossed paths after A Scandal in Bohemia and that Holmes held her in high admiration for skills that were not merely operatic.

... Indeed, no less a Holmesian authority than William S. Baring-Gould has suggested that Nero Wolfe is the son of Holmes and Ms. Adler. ...

Wasn't Wolfe born in Montenegro? Unless I'm mistaken about this, Baring-Gould has some explaining to do--though travelers do often give birth in striking places.

Byron

Logged

Byron Leon McAllister.Books by Byron and Kay McAllister can most easily be obtained as e-books or in print from the publisher at http://www.writewordsinc.com/ For "Undercover Nudist," the print version is an improved version of the ebook version. The others are the same in both formats.

Wasn't [Nero] Wolfe born in Montenegro? Unless I'm mistaken about this, Baring-Gould has some explaining to do--though travelers do often give birth in striking places.

As I recall, Mr. Baring-Gould suggests that Wolfe was the issue of a liaison that occurred between Holmes and Miss Adler during the "long absence" when the famed sleuth, believed by the public at large to have been killed by Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls, was traveling incognito all over the world.

The contact may even have taken place in Montenegro.

This is all from memory, but if you're really interested, Baring-Gould's explanation can be found in his scholarly "biography" of Holmes, Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street. He also suggests Holmes's parentage of Wolfe in his scholarly biography of Wolfe, Nero Wolfe of West 35th Street.